Memo_collector

Why I Believe Realistic Armour Penetration is Better for the Game (Part 2)

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

88 posts in this topic

As many of you may be aware, the current armour penetration mechanic in the game is highly unrealistic.  Consider the following issues which are often brought up by players on the forums:

- Yamato vs Montana imbalance: Specifically, Montana's guns just feel downright pitiful compared to Yamato's.  Many players feel that Montana cannot compete with Yamato at all because of this.

- RNG: Specifically, the seemingly random nature of AP damage where 7-10 AP hits do no damage one moment and does tens of thousands of damage in the very next salvo.

- Plunging fire: People often complain about the lack of plunging fire in this game.  USN suffer the most from this as many of their guns were specifically designed for enhanced deck penetration.

- HE Spam: BB players complain about being set on fire all the time and CA players defend the current HE mechanic as it's their only mean of reliably damaging a BB.

- Boring high tier meta: BB players camping in the back all game long for fear of being deleted the second they overextend.  When the BBs do go on the offensive, they play the ships like they're immobile tanks; nose pointed to the enemy, stopped or reversing.

- Battleships with smaller-than-normal caliber guns and their place in this game: Some people have expressed concern over how ships such as Scharnhorst and KGV will compete with their big-gun brethrens.  Rightly so, as gun caliber has a huge effect on penetration ability of the shells currently. 

What do all of the above issues have in common?  They are all problems created by the flawed penetration mechanic currently in place.  High tier BB (& CA) players play scared because unrealistically high penetration power of the guns that are in use have eliminated any useful immunity zones that would have been afforded to these ships.  On the other hand, the unrealistic ricochet angle has made angling unnaturally effective against AP rounds, resulting in this strange tank-like meta.  Not only that, cruisers spam HE at battleships because AP just does not do much, especially if the said battleship is angled.  The arbitrary 60 degree auto-bounce angle is also largely responsible for the random feel of AP rounds (dispersion plays a role, too, of course) and the disparity between Montana and Yamato:  What would have been a triple citadel at impact angle of 55 degrees suddenly become all bounces at 60 degrees.  Similarly, the problem is not that Montana's guns have weak penetration values, but rather that her shells auto-bounce off 30 mm of armour at 60 degrees.  Yamato doesn't have this problem because her shell size lets her ignore up to 32 mm of armour.  

 

Conversely, ALL of the above problems can be addressed with a more accurate armour penetration and damage model.  My proposal is as follows:

1. Distinguish between face-hardened armour and homogeneous steel.   

2. Replace the current armour penetration formula with 3 different penetration formulas in order to accurately model a) complete penetration of face-hardened armour, b) partial penetration of face-hardened armour, and c) penetration of homogeneous steel.

3. Scale back the auto-bounce angle from 60 degrees to 80 degrees (from normal).

4. Rework AP shell damage to include damage from partial penetrations

5. Rework HE shell damage mechanism so that armour thickness at impact location affects damage taken from HE.

 

The above changes will have the following effects:

A) AP rounds will almost always deal damage if it hits unarmoured section of a ship.

B) AP rounds will replace HE rounds as the ammunition of choice for most ships,

C) Cruisers will do more damage to battleships with AP than they currently do with HE.  On the flip side, HE damage will go down as the damage will be scaled down according to armour thickness at impact.  This means that HE use will become more situational.  I believe this change makes for a healthier dynamic as it decouples cruiser DPS from fire damage.  Want to DPS a battleship down?  Use AP.  Want to punish a BB player for using Damage Control incorrectly?  Use HE.  Contrast that with current situation where spamming HE against battleships is almost always ideal because HE deals more consistent damage and also has a chance to deal %HP damage in the form of fire.  Even destroyers will be able to deal consistent damage against battleships using AP.

D) AP damage will become less spikey and more consistent overall.  In particular, citadel penetration will be harder to achieve as penetration of face-hardened armour will be calculated properly.  Many instances of citadel penetration will instead turn into partial penetration which deal significantly less damage.  On the flip side, ricochet will become very rare.

E) Effective engagement distance at high tier will shrink considerably.  In particular, ships will enjoy their historical immunity zones and long range attack will become much less effective as a result.  For example, it will become impossible to achieve complete citadel penetration on Yamato or Montana from 19 km out, even with Yamato's guns!  However, this will not mean that BB can just sit in their immunity zones and snipe all day because they will become more vulnerable than ever before to small caliber AP.  Due to more realistic ricochet behaviour, it will no longer be possible to protect unarmoured section of a ship by angling.  The only protection is not getting hit in the first place.  This will get rid of the stale tank meta.  

F) Armour scheme of a ship will matter more than ever before.  In particular, deck armour will actually matter as plunging fire will be a credible threat, instead of auto-bouncing off deck as it does now.

G) Gun caliber will matter less in determining penetration as shells will not have to depend on overmatch mechanic to overcome the auto-bounce at oblique angle.  Yes, this means that Montana's guns will actually perform like they should. 

 

 

Accurate Modelling of Armour Penetration

I believe the current armour penetration formula calculates penetration for homogeneous steel armour.  Unfortunately, this means that penetration against face-hardened armour that protects the sides of cruisers, battleships, and carriers, as well as their turrets and barbettes is grossly misrepresented.  Consider the following graph posted by ArdRaeiss showing in-game penetration curve of 203 mm AP Mark 21 used by Baltimore and Des Moines:

AP Mark 21.jpg

The blue line represents penetration against vertical armour (which would have been face-hardened armour) and the orange line represents penetration against deck armour (homogeneous armour).  The penetration values are in mm and the range is in km.  

 

Now, compare that with the actual penetration curve of 203 mm AP Mark 21 according to Facehard & M79APCLC (Developed by Nathan Okun for calculating penetration against face-hardened armour and homogeneous armour, respectively.  More information can be found at http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/index_nathan.php).

Penetration of 203 mm AP Mark 21 vs Distance.  Penetration values are in inches and the distance is in 1000 yards.

203 mm AP Mark 21.png

US Deck: (complete) penetration of US Special Treatment Steel (STS)

Jp H: partial penetration of Japanese Vickers Hardened (VH) armour.  The plate will be holed but no detonation will occur behind the plate.

Jp EFF: complete penetration of Japanese VH armour.  This means that AP shell will be able to detonate after penetrating the armour

Partial Penetration: my approximation of partial penetration of Japanese VH armour

Full Penetration: my approximation of complete penetration of Japanese VH armour

Deck Penetration: my approximation of penetration of US STS

Note that 20 inches = 508 mm.  Comparing the 2 graphs gives us clear indication that in-game penetration values are higher than they should be.  Of course, this isn't a problem specific to 203 mm AP Mark 21.  For example, this is why an Amagi can citadel a broadside Montana/Yamato at 20 km and why a Yamato can destroy another Yamato's guns by shooting at its turret face at close range.  Neither of these things should be possible according to calculations done in Facehard.  The exaggerated penetration values make high tier CAs and BBs timid and contribute to the current stale meta:  Because armour doesn't work as it should, high tier players become paranoid about getting hit.  Proper calculation will reduce penetration against face-hardened armour by ~20%, which will make high tier ships a lot more resilient to devastating multi-citadel hits at range.  This in turn will shrink the effective engagement distance at these tiers and make battles more interesting (at least in my opinion :P).

 

As I have mentioned previously, the current auto-bounce angle is set at 60 degrees from normal.  This means that 1/3 of all possible impact angles (60 - 90 degrees) are automatically discarded as ricochets, UNLESS the shell caliber is greater than 14.3 times the armour thickness. Let's examine penetration characteristic of 406 mm AP Mark 8 fired from 406 mm/50 Mark 7 guns of Iowa/Montana at 762 m/s to see why this does not make sense. 

Penetration of Japanese VH Armour by 406 mm AP Mark 8 at 762 m/s Plotted Against Impact Angle.  Here, impact angle of 0 means the shell hits perpendicular to the plate.

406 mm AP Mark 8 Against VH Armour.png

Penetration of US STS by 406 mm AP Mark 8 at 762 m/s Plotted Against Impact Angle.  Here, impact angle of 90 means the shell hits perpendicular to the plate. (Confusing, I know, but this was more convenient for me.  So 30 degrees on this graph means 60 degrees on the above graph and vice versa.)

406 mm AP Mark 8 Against STS.png

Penetration numbers are in inches.  As one can see, 406 mm Mark 8 moving at 762 m/s has around 250 mm of penetration at impact angle of 60 degrees against both US STS and Japanese VH Armour.  Yet, it cannot even penetrate 30 mm of armour in the game at this angle as 30 mm x 14.3 = 429 mm, which is greater than the diameter of the shell.  No wonder these shells feel anemic!  We can rectify the problem by using 3 different formulas which will accurately calculate complete penetration against face-hardened armour up to 70 degrees from normal, partial penetration against face-hardened armour up to 80 degrees and penetration against homogeneous armour up to 80 degrees, as I have done in the above graphs.  

 

 

Calculating Ricochet Chance

Ricochet will be guaranteed at angles above 80 degrees from normal, unless the plate is very thin.  At angles 45-80, there will be a chance for ricochet depending on shell diameter, shell mass, shell speed, impact angle, and armour thickness.  Above changes mean that the chance of ricochet will change gradually depending on many factors, instead of going from 0 to 1 abruptly as the shell size matches some threshold value for a given armour thickness (I'm looking at you, Yamato :P).

Chance of Penetrating 32 mm US STS at 609.6 m/s Plotted Against Impact Angle

Chance of Penetrating 32 mm.png

Chance of Penetrating 70 mm US STS at 609.6 m/s Plotted Against Impact Angle

Chance of Penetrating 70 mm.png

Chance of Penetrating 32 mm US STS at Various Speeds Plotted Against Impact Angle

Chance of Penetrating 32 mm for 155 mm AP Type 91.png

The above graph shows effect of speed on ricochet chance for Japanese 155 mm APC Type 91. 

 

 

Damage Calculations

Nation Shell Type Firing Gun Mass Bursting Charge Diameter Citadel Detonation Partial Penetration Over-Penetration
Japan                
  460 mm APC Type 91 460 mm/45 Type 94 1460 kg 33.85 kg 460 mm 15600 3765 720
  410 mm APC Type 91 410 mm/45 3rd Year Type 1020 kg 14.89 kg 410 mm 11300 3027 620
  356 mm APC Type 91 356 mm/45 43rd Year Type 673.5 kg 11.1 kg 356 mm 9700 2496 515
  203 mm APC Type 91 203 mm/50 3rd Year Type No.2 125.85 kg 3.11 kg 203 mm 5200 1155 250
  200 mm APC Type 5 200 mm/50 3rd Year Type No.1 110 kg 2.9 kg 200 mm 4800 1071 245
  155 mm APC Type 91 155 mm/60 3rd Year Type 55.87 kg 1.15 kg 155 mm 3300 747 175
USA                
  406 mm AP Mark 8 406 mm/50 Mark 7 1225 kg 18.55 kg 406 mm 12100 3297 610
  406 mm AP Mark 5 406 mm/45 Mark 5 1016 kg 15.2 kg 406 mm 11000 3000 610
  406 mm AP Mark 3 406 mm/45 Mark 1 957.1 kg 26.1 kg 406 mm 13200 3084 610
  356 mm AP Mark 16 356 mm/50 Mark 7 680.4 kg 10.4 kg 356 mm 9200 2472 515
  305 mm AP Mark 18 305 mm/50 Mark 8 517.1 kg 7.9 kg 305 mm 8100 2160 420
  305 mm AP Mark 15 305 mm/50 Mark 7 394.6 kg 11.3 kg 305 mm 8900 2013 420
  203 mm AP Mark 21 203 mm/55RF Mark 16 152 kg 2.3 kg 203 mm 4600 1185 250
  203 mm AP Mark 19 203 mm/55 Mark 9 118 kg 1.7 kg 203 mm 4000 1044 250
  152 mm AP Mark 35 152 mm/47 Mark 16 59 kg 0.9 kg 152 mm 3000 753 170
UK                
  406 mm AP Mark 2B 406 mm/45 Mark 4 1080 kg 27 kg 406 mm 13500 3246 610
  406 mm AP Mark 1B 406 mm/45 Mark 1 929 kg 23.2 kg 406 mm 12600 3015 610
  381 mm AP Mark 17B 381 mm/42 Mark 1 879 22 kg 381 mm 12300 2934 565
  356 mm AP Mark 1B 356 mm/45 Mark 7 721 kg 22 kg 356 mm 12000 2706 515
  203 mm AP Mark 1B 203 mm/50 Mark 8 116 kg 5.2 kg 203 mm 6000 1173 250
Germany                
  406 mm APC L/4,4 406 mm/52 SK C/34 1030 kg 24.2 kg 406 mm 13000 3156 610
  380 mm APC L/4,4 380 mm/52 SK C/34 800 kg 18.8 kg 380 mm 11500 2784 565
  280 mm APC L/4,4 283 mm/54.5 SK C/34 330 kg 7.84 kg 283 mm 7700 1812 380
  203 mm APC L/4,4 203 mm/60 SK C/34 122 kg 2.3 kg 203 mm 4500 1092 250
  150 mm APC L/3,7 150 mm/60 SK C/25 45.5 kg 0.885 kg 150 mm 2900 675 165

 

Citadel Detonation damage was calculated by taking into account mass of the explosive inside the shell, mass of the shell, and the explosive used.  Detonation outside the citadel but inside the ship will do 0.33 damage as before (0.165 to hull HP and 0.165 to the relevant section of the ship).

Partial Penetration damage was calculated by taking into account mass of the shell and a percentage of full detonation damage.  This is because the shell does not detonate (sometimes low-order detonation is possible) after partial penetration, which means shell mass will be the primary factor in determining the damage inflicted.  

Over-penetration damage is calculated from shell size only. 

AP Mark 21.jpg

203 mm AP Mark 21.png

406 mm AP Mark 8 Against VH Armour.png

406 mm AP Mark 8 Against STS.png

Chance of Penetrating 32 mm.png

Chance of Penetrating 70 mm.png

Chance of Penetrating 32 mm for 155 mm AP Type 91.png


37

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhh woops you probably wanted this spot, sorry:(

 

Edited by slak__

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used refined versions of armour penetration formulae I came up with last November in order to approximate the results from Facehard and M79APCLC.  See http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/57605-accurate-modelling-of-armour-penetration/

 

Current damage model is explained here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.worldofwarships.ru%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F34211-&sandbox=1

 

Here are my approximations for some of the guns that are in the game.  As one can see, it is possible to arrive at penetration values that closely match Facehard and M79APCLC results by identifying 3 different penetration types (complete, partial, homogeneous) and using a separate formula for each case.

 

JAPAN:

460 mm APC Type 91 fired from 460 mm/45 at 780 m/s (Yamato)

460 mm APC Type 91.png

410 mm APC Type 91 fired from 410 mm/45 at 806 m/s (Nagato, Amagi)

410 mm APC Type 91.png

356 mm APC Type 91 fired from 356 mm/45 at 775 m/s (Kongo, Fuso, Myogi?)

356 mm APC Type 91.png

203 mm APC Type 91 fired from 203 mm/50 at 840 m/s (Myoko, Mogami, Atago, Ibuki)

203 mm APC Type 91.png

155 mm APC Type 91 fired from 155 mm/60 at 920 m/s (Mogami, Yamato's secondary battery)

155 mm APC Type 91.png

 

USN:

406 mm AP Mark 8 fired from 406 mm/50 at 762 m/s (Montana, Iowa)

406 mm AP Mark 8.png

406 mm AP Mark 5 fired from 406 mm/45 at 768 m/s (Colorado)

406 mm AP Mark 5.png

356 mm AP Mark 16 fired from 356 mm/50 at 823 m/s (New Mexico)

356 mm AP Mark 16.png

203 mm AP Mark 19 fired from 203 mm/55 at 853 m/s (Pensacola, New Orleans?)

203 mm AP Mark 19.png

203 mm AP Mark 21 fired from 203 mm/55 at 762 m/s (Baltimore, Des Moines)

203 mm AP Mark 21.png

 

RN:

381 mm AP Mark 17 fired from 381 mm/42 at 749 m/s (Warspite)

381 mm Mark 17B.png

 

KM:

381 mm APC L/4,4 fired from 381 mm/52 at 820 m/s (Tirpitz)

381 mm German.png

280 mm APC L/4,4 fired from 283 mm/54.5 at 890 m/s (Scharnhorst)

280 mm German.png

203 mm APC L/4,4 fired from 203 mm/60 at 925 m/s (Admiral Hipper, Roon, Hindenburg)

203 mm German.png

150 mm APC L/3,7 fired from 203 mm/60 at 960 m/s (Konigsberg, Nurnberg)

150 mm German.png

 

The reason the deck penetration numbers do not match at close range is because I've set the auto-ricochet angle at 80 degrees from normal.  This is consistent with USN's experimental data for homogeneous armour penetration which forms the basis of M79APCLC computer program.  More information can be found here http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/M79apdoc.htm

 

460 mm APC Type 91.png

410 mm APC Type 91.png

356 mm APC Type 91.png

203 mm APC Type 91.png

155 mm APC Type 91.png

406 mm AP Mark 8.png

406 mm AP Mark 5.png

356 mm AP Mark 16.png

203 mm AP Mark 21.png

381 mm German.png

280 mm German.png

381 mm Mark 17B.png

203 mm AP Mark 19.png

150 mm German.png

203 mm German.png

Edited by Memo_collector

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:fishpalm:

Reserved.....

 

How about no? You want to completely re-write shell mechanics to suit your personal tastes? 

Or have you been playing so long that you forgot this is an arcade game....:trollface:

 

Seems to me this would benefit the more skilled players, and punish the less accurate ones.

Edited by awiggin

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my....that is def earth shattering info.  

 

though the HE mechanic has been argued for so long im not even sure if they will nerf it any further :/ 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Slak:look:

 

Hiya!

 

This is complicated stuff, I skimmed it and honestly it makes a lot of sense. Just not sure how, or IF the devs could do it? Gonna pull it up on my PC and read it properly.

 

BTW Memo is a BB main, to the BB'est degree so he isn't trying to nerf his favorite class. That much I am sure of.

Edited by slak__

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:fishpalm:

Reserved.....

 

How about no? You want to completely re-write shell mechanics to suit your personal tastes? 

Or have you been playing so long that you forgot this is an arcade game....

 

Well, no... I think the shells behaving more realistically will be healthier for the game in the long run.  I've listed my reasons for why I think that.  I'm not arguing that this game should be turned into a simulator. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Cleveland's shell trajectories unrealistic? When you tried to "fix" one problem, another problem will arise.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reserved until I can read everything. 

 

You know HE is damage does depend on the armor where it hits. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very interesting reading. Thanks for that, a lot to digest. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reserved until I can read everything. 

 

You know HE is damage does depend on the armor where it hits. 

 

My understanding of HE damage is that it currently works exactly like AP, but with no angle dependence.  So the shell will go through a penetration check, and if it passes, it will do a fixed amount of damage (0.33 to non-citadel area).  Only the splash damage to modules in the explosion radius is affected by armour thickness, according to the explanation of damage model here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.worldofwarships.ru%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F34211-&sandbox=1.  What I'm proposing is that the damage to the ship HP should be reduced by armour thickness as well.  Which makes sense realistically.  The detonation of HE shell happens at the contact point so the surrounding armour should reduce the damage done to the ship hull.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My understanding of HE damage is that it currently works exactly like AP, but with no angle dependence.  So the shell will go through a penetration check, and if it passes, it will do a fixed amount of damage (0.33 to non-citadel area).  Only the splash damage to modules in the explosion radius is affected by armour thickness, according to the explanation of damage model here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.worldofwarships.ru%2Findex.php%3F%2Ftopic%2F34211-&sandbox=1.  What I'm proposing is that the damage to the ship HP should be reduced by armour thickness as well.  Which makes sense realistically.  The detonation of HE shell happens at the contact point so the surrounding armour should reduce the damage done to the ship hull.

 

 

Your link says:

  The damage can be reduced, if the module is protected by armor - in this case, it is registered to a reduction factor, which is calculated on the basis of its armor protection and can reduce the damage taken to zero.

 

Like in WOT, the game first checks to see if the HE shell will penetrate, if it does the shell does full damage or as much as the modules inside the splash zone can take, if the shell does not penetrate it does splash damage to all the modules in its splash radius reduced by any armor that might be between. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your link says:

 

Like in WOT, the game first checks to see if the HE shell will penetrate, if it does the shell does full damage or as much as the modules inside the splash zone can take, if the shell does not penetrate it does splash damage to all the modules in its splash radius reduced by any armor that might be between. 

 

Yes, so the damage to a module can be reduced by armour thickness.  But damage to the ship's HP always does a fixed amount of damage, AFAIK.  For example, HE on Fletcher is listed for 1800 damage.  I can citadel an Atlanta for 1800 damage, or hit him elsewhere for 1800 x 0.33 = 594 damage until damage gets saturated at which point I'll do 297 damage.  The 594 and 297 is the same whether I fire HE at Atlanta or Yamato: As long as HE passes the penetration test, the damage done to a ship's HP pool doesn't depend on armour thickness, much like AP damage.  At least that's been my experience.  I admit I haven't done a rigorous testing so I may be wrong. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, so the damage to a module can be reduced by armour thickness.  But damage to the ship's HP always does a fixed amount of damage, AFAIK.  For example, HE on Fletcher is listed for 1800 damage.  I can citadel an Atlanta for 1800 damage, or hit him elsewhere for 1800 x 0.33 = 594 damage until damage gets saturated at which point I'll do 297 damage.  The 594 and 297 is the same whether I fire HE at Atlanta or Yamato: As long as HE passes the penetration test, the damage done to a ship's HP pool doesn't depend on armour thickness, much like AP damage.  At least that's been my experience.  I admit I haven't done a rigorous testing so I may be wrong. 

 

Thats not how it works at all, module HP governs the max amount of ship HP that can be removed from that section. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a ship already in-game that depends on defeating immunity zones, shorter range engagements, plunging AP fire, and gradual DPS as opposed to citadel farming.  The Karlsruhe.  No, it can't AP battleships to death, but it fights almost exactly as you've described against opposing light cruisers.  People seem not to enjoy that playstyle, regardless of how weak it may or may not be.

 

Maybe Wargaming could introduce a higher tier battleship with steeply plunging AP rounds, enough pen to defeat BB deck armor, and see how the community reacts?  If they bite, go from there.  If they don't, nothing's really been lost, and we get to keep another interesting one-off to mix up gameplay.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

:fishpalm:

Reserved.....

 

How about no? You want to completely re-write shell mechanics to suit your personal tastes?

Or have you been playing so long that you forgot this is an arcade game....:trollface:

 

Seems to me this would benefit the more skilled players, and punish the less accurate ones.

 

He wants to rewrite shell mechanics so they actually act like [edited] shells.

I am really starting to get tired of this whole "its an arcade game" blanket B.S. excuse people have when dismissing ideas to make the game better. Other "arcade" games have better shell penetration/damage models so why can't this game have that too? Arcade or not this game has a mediocre excuse for a damage model currently, and this is honestly one of the better ideas for changing it that I have seen in some time (accurately modeled plunging fire especially is sorely needed in game). Also so what if it punishes less skilled players initially, They will adapt in due time or they won't its as simple as that (why so afraid of change?).

Edited by Fog_Cruiser_Nachi

13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I whole-heartedly agree that the current armor/penetration/ricochet system needs to be overhauled, and Memo's proposal seems like a good way to do it. I would also like for shell dispersion to be changed to a more circular pattern, as opposed to the horizontal ellipse it is currently. At present, simply pointing your ship at the enemy's means you will take considerably less hits in the first place, particularly at long ranges, even before the unrealistic ricochet mechanics factor in. Changing the dispersion pattern would mean that ships would stand an even chance of being hit by plunging fire no matter what angle they were at, removing the incentive to bow-camp.

 

From a broader, game-design philosophy perspective, I think World of Warships would greatly benefit from more realism. A game based on World War era naval combat should have gameplay mechanics with a basis in that reality: mechanics that actually ​represent the tactics and technologies of the era in a fun (repeat: FUN​) manner. When you have arbitrary or grossly oversimplified core elements of naval warfare (e.g. the current penetration mechanics, as Memo has explained in detail), then the entire gameplay experience shifts. You stop having a naval warfare game and start having another unrealistic arcade game, only now in a naval disguise. Having an arcade game may appeal to some, but I'm guessing most people play World of Warships because they want a game that is actually about historical warships, not a generic arcade shooter with warship skins.

 

Edited by Terran_Crusader

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most, nearly all of this is waaaay over my head.

 

It sounds great, I am 4500 games in though and I have a general idea where to shoot at stuff and why.

 

My question would be how much more difficult would this make the game for new players, if at all?

 

Regardless, I am all about some sort of change in the shell mechanics. IMHumbleO a Cruiser spamming HE over and over and over should not be optimal way to do damage, taking well aimed and good shots with AP should be. Regardless of class. 

 

One way or the other this seems very well thought out and well written, hopefully it will catch some WG Dev page views.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:fishpalm:

Reserved.....

 

How about no? You want to completely re-write shell mechanics to suit your personal tastes? 

Or have you been playing so long that you forgot this is an arcade game....:trollface:

 

Seems to me this would benefit the more skilled players, and punish the less accurate ones.

 

I love how you are the only one who isn't even taking the smallest bit of consideration into how this would affect gameplay and dismissing it for unknown reasons. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He wants to rewrite shell mechanics so they actually act like [edited] shells.

I am really starting to get tired of this whole "its an arcade game" blanket B.S. excuse people have when dismissing ideas to make the game better. Other "arcade" games have better shell penetration/damage models so why can't this game have that too? Arcade or not this game has a mediocre excuse for a damage model currently, and this is honestly one of the better ideas for changing it that I have seen in some time (accurately modeled plunging fire especially is sorely needed in game). Also so what if it punishes less skilled players initially, They will adapt in due time or they won't its as simple as that (why so afraid of change?).

 

Changing the sells wont change plunging fire, the reason it does not exist in game is because we dont play ranges where it would actually happen for the vast majority of shells. Same with immunity zones, the ranges were these things become relevant is 20+ km which is really beyond what ships can effectively shoot at in game with maximum ranges and ship maneuverability being what they are. 


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...if a player feels montana can't compete with yamato simply cause AP shell penetration mechanism, he is playing montana wrong.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.